Gray Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 But there are faiths that teach that participating in a SSM is sinful. Surely there is a difference between getting married to someone of your sex and baking a cake. I mean neither are specifically mentioned in the Bible, but the cake thing seems particularly innocuous.
Avatar4321 Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 No one has ever been forced to be a baker that I'm aware of. Doesn't matter if they are forced to be a baker or not.Forcing someone to bake a cake the do not want to bake is wrong. Period.
thesometimesaint Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Doesn't matter if they are forced to be a baker or not.Forcing someone to bake a cake the do not want to bake is wrong. Period. The exact same argument was used to deny blacks a seat at the lunch tables, buses, and movie theaters for generations of Americans.
bluebell Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Surely there is a difference between getting married to someone of your sex and baking a cake. I mean neither are specifically mentioned in the Bible, but the cake thing seems particularly innocuous. There is definitely a difference between getting married to someone of the same sex and baking a cake. As far as i am aware, no one is attempting to suggest they are similar. What I am saying is that i don't believe it's unreasonable to believe that baking a cake for a SSM is the same as participating in a SSM.
bluebell Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 No, I can't see the difference. I don't think serving cake at a gay wedding could be reasonably construed as sinful, even if you believe gay marriage is sinful That's great. But this isn't about you, right? Just because you don't believe something is sinful doesn't mean you can then declare that no one should believe that. You are not the standard that everyone else must measure their beliefs by.
frank_jessop Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 The exact same argument was used to deny blacks a seat at the lunch tables, buses, and movie theaters for generations of Americans.But can't you see the difference between the discrimination against blacks and the present discrimination against homosexuals? The discrimination de jour against Blacks was born out of religious teachings...see its different than the discrimination against homosexuals.
frank_jessop Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 If someone says "doing this is against my religious beliefs" i'm not going to argue with them about whether or not it actually is. They obviously know their religious beliefs better than i do.Your reasoning is faulty because you are claiming no matter what a person claims is a "religious belief" the belief expressed is affirmative proof that the religion the person claims teaches the expressed religious belief.
bluebell Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Your reasoning is faulty because you are claiming no matter what a person claims is a "religious belief" the belief expressed is affirmative proof that the religion the person claims teaches the expressed religious belief. All i know is that when someone comes on here, that isn't Mormon, and attempts to tell the Mormons what the church 'actually' teaches, they look like a fool and are easily ignored/dismissed. If you want to crawl in bed with those kinds of people, more power to you. As for me, i'll stick with what i said. If someone says that something is against their religious beliefs, I'm going to assume that they know better than i do.
Gray Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Doesn't matter if they are forced to be a baker or not.Forcing someone to bake a cake the do not want to bake is wrong. Period. I'm imagining armed troops making the baker make a cake at gunpoint. In America, no one has to make any cakes. However, if you do make cakes as a business, you should probably get used to serving the general public without discriminating by race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
Gray Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 What I am saying is that i don't believe it's unreasonable to believe that baking a cake for a SSM is the same as participating in a SSM. I'd say that's pretty unreasonable, actually.
Gray Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 That's great. But this isn't about you, right? Just because you don't believe something is sinful doesn't mean you can then declare that no one should believe that. You are not the standard that everyone else must measure their beliefs by. No, it's not about me, it's about a bill that seeks legalize discrimination against gay citizens by business owners.
bluebell Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 No, it's not about me, it's about a bill that seeks legalize discrimination against gay citizens by business owners. Yes, it can definitely be looked at that way. Some people though believe that when the government forces someone to participate in something they believe is immoral that that is discrimination against religious people. Therefore, they see this bill as protecting people from discrimination. Your interpretation of this bill is not the only one.
frank_jessop Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 All i know is that when someone comes on here, that isn't Mormon, and attempts to tell the Mormons what the church 'actually' teaches, they look like a fool and are easily ignored/dismissed.If you want to crawl in bed with those kinds of people, more power to you.As for me, i'll stick with what i said. If someone says that something is against their religious beliefs, I'm going to assume that they know better than i do.No one here has attempted to tell another person what their religious beliefs are. Though it is quite easy to learn what Mormons believe without being a Mormon. LDS.org is a great source of information on what the LDS believe. It is also equally foolish, or a fallacy, to claim that a religious belief equals an organized Faith teaching the expressed belief. How much variation in "religious belief" is found the membership of the LDS - the Prophet of which is President Monson? And this goes to your point, just because a person who is LDS says "my religous beliefs" does not mean LDS Church teaches those things.
frank_jessop Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 No, it's not about me, it's about a bill that seeks legalize discrimination against gay citizens by business owners.It is legal without this law!The State of Arizona does not regard sexual orientation as a protected class. Someone claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation in Arizona has ZERO legal options. As the law stands at the Federal level and in the State of Arizona, discrimination based on sexual orientation is not prohibited.
bluebell Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 I'd say that's pretty unreasonable, actually. Again, great for you. I don't believe it is at all unreasonable (even though i don't exactly agree with it). If i asked my neighbor to bake a cake for my wedding, and someone later asked them if they were helping me with my wedding, i believe it would be reasonable for them to answer 'yes'. If you are comfortable believing my neighbor is actually unreasonable for such an answer, then o.k. I don't think you'd find many people who would agree with you on your interpretation of 'reasonable' but you can hold whatever opinion you would like. It doesn't impact anyone else.
bluebell Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 No one here has attempted to tell another person what their religious beliefs are. Though it is quite easy to learn what Mormons believe without being a Mormon. LDS.org is a great source of information on what the LDS believe.It is also equally foolish, or a fallacy, to claim that a religious belief equals an organized Faith teaching the expressed belief. How much variation in "religious belief" is found the membership of the LDS - the Prophet of which is President Monson? And this goes to your point, just because a person who is LDS says "my religous beliefs" does not mean LDS Church teaches those things. This REALLY isn't worth arguing about. If you want to believe it's foolish, then i'm completely fine with that. I stand by what i said. Obviously there are religions which believe that participating in a SSM is sinful, as there are people who claim that doing so is against their religion.
Gray Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Yes, it can definitely be looked at that way. Some people though believe that when the government forces someone to participate in something they believe is immoral that that is discrimination against religious people. Therefore, they see this bill as protecting people from discrimination. Your interpretation of this bill is not the only one. That's a rather Orwellian interpretation, though.
Gray Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 It is legal without this law!The State of Arizona does not regard sexual orientation as a protected class. Someone claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation in Arizona has ZERO legal options. As the law stands at the Federal level and in the State of Arizona, discrimination based on sexual orientation is not prohibited. True, good point. The sorts of people who pass these kinds of bills do love their symbolic gestures.
Gray Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Again, great for you. I don't believe it is at all unreasonable (even though i don't exactly agree with it). If i asked my neighbor to bake a cake for my wedding, and someone later asked them if they were helping me with my wedding, i believe it would be reasonable for them to answer 'yes'. If you are comfortable believing my neighbor is actually unreasonable for such an answer, then o.k. I don't think you'd find many people who would agree with you on your interpretation of 'reasonable' but you can hold whatever opinion you would like. It doesn't impact anyone else. I think most people would agree with my opinion on this (and most people support gay marriage), but that's beside the point. It's not reasonable to suppose that providing cake in exchange for money amounts to meaningful participating in a gay wedding, unless the cake also contains the pastor who will be marrying the happy couple.
Gray Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 This REALLY isn't worth arguing about. If you want to believe it's foolish, then i'm completely fine with that. I stand by what i said. Obviously there are religions which believe that participating in a SSM is sinful, as there are people who claim that doing so is against their religion. These people should probably get out of the catering business, if they're that sensitive. Imagine if they were asked to cater a Mormon wedding reception next - most people antagonistic toward gay weddings tend to come from religions unfriendly to Mormons.
bluebell Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 It's not reasonable to suppose that providing cake in exchange for money amounts to meaningful participating in a gay wedding, unless the cake also contains the pastor who will be marrying the happy couple. Obviously, we disagree.
bluebell Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 That's a rather Orwellian interpretation, though. Is it alright if others don't agree with you on that?
bluebell Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 These people should probably get out of the catering business, if they're that sensitive. Imagine if they were asked to cater a Mormon wedding reception next - most people antagonistic toward gay weddings tend to come from religions unfriendly to Mormons. Maybe they should get out of that business. Hopefully we will never be in their position where we believe we have to choose between supporting our families and offending God. I'm sure if it happens to us (and it very easily could-society and what they are willing to accept changes on a whim and while we might be on the 'right' side at one moment we could easily be on the wrong side the next), we would not view that choice as flippantly as we might when this kind of dilemma pertains only to someone else. Obviously though, people should follow their conscience, and if the government and/or society makes it impossible to do that in a certain profession then hard choices will have to be made.
Calm Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Imagine if they were asked to cater a Mormon wedding reception next - most people antagonistic toward gay weddings tend to come from religions unfriendly to Mormons. I don't understand why anyone would think this is an issue for those of us who think it might not be a good idea to force someone to participate (by their own definition) in an activity they believe is wrong….especially since refusing someone for being LDS has been used as an example already by at least me and bluebell has indicated that she agrees with me. I will not argue with someone if they say they won't do something for me because I am LDS. I believe they should have the right to do so. God will judge them just as he will judge me on allowing them their full agency as opposed to trying to force them to do right (he would, imo, judge me foolish if I tried to force them to do right as in my view that is an impossibility…even if the outward behaviour is "right", the inner behaviour is "wrong" and I prefer to know how people actually feel rather than promoting a society that lives behind masks even if those masks cover hate and bigotry; one can't try to help heal a wound that one doesn't know exists).
Gray Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Is it alright if others don't agree with you on that? It's all right with me if it's all right with you.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.